Kicking a gravely wounded US soldier in the face as he lays dying is LEGAL

[LynnTheDem]

So remember that, America, when it's a US soldier lying on the ground dying and being kicked in the face by the enemy. It's not illegal, it's just "inappropriate behaviour".

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7832369

"Do unto others..."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Simply amazing...a quote from the article

Documents released by the Pentagon showed that Army criminal investigators looked into the matter and decided no criminal charges were warranted against the soldiers. Documents showed that the Army deemed the actions shown on the video "inappropriate" rather than criminal.

"It didn't rise to the level of criminal abuse, according to the investigations," said Lt. Col. Jeremy Martin, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "Clearly, the soldiers probably exercised poor judgment ... and I'm sure that they were admonished by their command for their actions."

[Zuni]

3. like I said below

being in combat turns men very callous. These men were suffering from extreme-desensitization and were a little f-ed up in the head at the time.
This stuff happens in all wars, with all armies. It is a by product of the brutality that they live in daily.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. I'm really sick of justificatiions for this

If they are THAT fatigued, then they should be pulled from combat. I have no sympathy for brutality. I understand PTSD will make people do things, but so will lack of leadership and a sense of permissiveness.

[Zuni]

23. war turns men into animals

you have no idea the stress men are under in combat and the brutality they see everyday.

Stuff like this is minor and happens all the time, anywhere wars are fought

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. Great...so does ghettoization, but I've never heard a pro war person

say a gangster should be spared the death penalty

[LynnTheDem]

30. No it doesn't turn all people into animals.

And those who commit such crimes need to be held accountable for their actions.

"Stuff like this is minor"???

So you're fine then with a dying US soldier being kicked in his face? That would just be a minor thing?

As with the rightwingnuts, with such "SUPPORT" as yours, our troops don't need any enemies.

[FreedomAngel82]

77. You're right

They're trained to kill in war. :( Kill in any way to survive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Ok you have hit the nail on the head

WW II, we pulled the troops off the line every ninety days for at least three days of R&R. Vietnman, troops went to a year long tour, midway they were sent to fouguet or the philipines to blow off steam for a week.

These days many of these troops are ON the wire for a year +, and not all of them are getting leave mid point.

Don't worry, we will pay for it as a society... in spades.

the other day I was talking to some Marines who came off the wire, 24 hours before... and became their debriefer, informally, which by the way, the army and marines are not doing either.

WW II, the troops came home on a slow boat, with thir buddies, and over those long passages they decompressed. These kids were fully wound up.

[IrateCitizen]

36. It's not a justification, NSMA-- it's a fact.

War places people in a context that severly warps their sense of right and wrong. It is for this reason, of course, that it should only be an absolute last resort after every other conceivable option has been exhausted -- and even then it isn't really "justifiable".

Are you familiar with Stan Goff, former Delta Force member and now antiwar activist? He's featured in a long interview on the DVD "Hijacking Catastrophe". He also has a son who is currently in Iraq. Goff discusses how his greatest fear for his son, besides his being killed, is "going crazy" in some way. Goff went on to explain that, when he was in Vietnam, they all "went crazy" in one way or another. He spoke of a helicopter pilot he knew who just loved to "grease Gooks". He told Stan that he just got such an incredible rush out of it. Stan then said that the only thing that was different about My Lai is that "... those guys got caught. Stuff like My Lai went on every single day over there."

War utterly dehumanizes those subjected to it. That doesn't excuse its brutality one bit, but unfortunately advocating prosecution won't really stop such acts from occurring. It just helps to remind us of one more reason of why we have to oppose the utter insanity that war really is.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. I understand the FACT and have no argument with that

Using the FACT as a justification for its occurrence is my issue. It's a FACT that crimes of poverty go up during a bad economy, but it hasn't stopped criminals from being punished.

[IrateCitizen]

46. Is punishment what you are truly interested in here, NSMA?

Personally, I'm not. Of course the soldiers in question should be disciplined, but IMHO that's not the real crux of the matter.

I would argue that this is a prime example of what war does to people. One of my greatest fears before my discharge was that I would somehow end up being deployed and would lose my humanity in the process. I honestly feared becoming a monster much more than I feared death.

Examples such as this are why we should NEVER put people in this position in the first place. If you place people in a situation in which barbarism is the rule, it is pretty inevitable that they will become barbarians.

The key isn't as much punishing them when they do act like barbarians as it is not putting them in a situation ruled by barbarism in the first place.

[ultraist]

99. I didn't interpret it to mean that

We have rules of engagement and a set of standards but they are not enforced on any level. Turning a blind eye and accepting war crimes as "just another day in combat" is a cop out.

The US military, ON ALL LEVELS, should be held accountable and live up to the laws. Just as we expect other countries to do the same.

[IrateCitizen]

104. Absolutely it's a cop-out. I would never argue with that.

If anything, the officers refusing to act here should be hit even HARDER than the soldiers who committed these acts, because the fuckwit officers are actually ENABLING similar things in the future by not dealing with them quickly right now.

Then again, such behavior is typical for officers -- especially field grade and above. I say that as an ex-Army officer myself....

[ultraist]

111. I agree, the officers should be hit even harder

Some allow this to continue and essentially give permission to their soldiers to engage in this type of behavior. In fact, I think many encourage it.

It's a sick system/institution and yet another reason why we should NEVER go to war unless we absolutely have to defend ourselves. It must be very difficult for the soldiers and officers that do have integrity to be a part of this.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

161. I'm not half as concerned with punishment as I am with our double standard

in the matter as a society. It is curious to me that people can see it when it's our troops but use it to lock people up here at home.
That's all.

[diamond14]

181. me too....that Americans can tolerate bush* acceptance of torture

makes me sick....

[FreedomAngel82]

74. Oh good grief

This is just unacceptable. And the orginial poster is right. When it happens to one of our own don't wonder why.

[SemperEadem]

153. we want to scream, howl and cry

when our dead soldiers are hung from bridges in Iraq, but when our soldiers are perpetrating unnecessary abuses on someone who is gravely wounded already and is posing no physical threat to the soldier, then it's ok because the soldier is one of ours and his victim is a brown skinned 'animal' who is less than human.

Karma is a bitch, so don't complain when it comes back for a visit. Our God supposedly tells us that what ever we dish out comes back 7 fold. Too bad our side can't seem to grasp that little thing our God we worship tells us.

[LynnTheDem]

176. Those were not soldiers hung from bridges, btw; those were mercs.

Just FYI.

[SemperEadem]

178. whatever....

mercenaries, soldiers--it didn't stop folks from howling about how horrible it was because they were on 'our' side.

[LynnTheDem]

179. Yep, just like it's ok for us to perpetrate 385 equivalent 911 attacks on

Iraq, who never had anything to do with the 911 attack on us. We lose 2600 Americans and it's WWIII. Iraqis lose 100,000 (over 1,000,000,000 equivalent) and it doesn't mean a damn thing to most Americans except we should kill more.

And so many Americans wonder why the world despises them. Well DUHHHH.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

160. Exactly..thanks

[Zuni]

2. no one who has never been in combat

can truly judge a combat soldier who has been in a harsh battle. People become very callous during and immediately after a battle. It is part of the pyschological trauma caused by war.

It is not just American soldiers. These things happen in war everywhere. It is part of battle fatigue

[MisterP]

4. I for one refuse to excuse them: they're putting my cousin's husband in

danger with this!

[Blue to the bone]

43. You mean he joined the military but never dreamed he might have..

....to kill someone?

Oh the horror.

[LynnTheDem]

85. My husband joined 20 years ago, career army officer. He HAS killed

people, and knew he would have to when he joined.

But YOU come tell him to his face that he's ever violated the regs on proper POW treatment or would ever excuse his own men from kicking a dying POW in the face.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Then he will keep hsi troops from doing this

it is called command discipline... bravo and I hope he can continue doing such

[LynnTheDem]

96. Yes it is command discipline. But individuals should be held to account

for their actions.

It's as wrong to blame ALL soldiers as it is to excuse ALL soldiers. They are individuals and as such should be held accountable for their individual actions.

That would include ALSO holding their chain of command responsible if the CoC knew and allowed such bahaviour. But it doesn't excuse the individuals.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. So ask your husband

how many article 32s he expects to see for these actions in TODAY's military?

How many Captains will request it?

Be realistic, not pie in the sky.

And before I punish the troops, when is the article 32 for BGen Karpinsky, MajGen Miller and LtGen Boyken?

[LynnTheDem]

122. He's deeply angry over the lack of soldiers being held accountable. As he

and many long-term officers & noncoms will tell you, this is no longer the army they knew and loved.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Why do yuo think my Husband retired from the navy

after 20 years, not even when they offered a rate increase would he stay?

Now what will he and others do? And can they do anything about it?

I mean we can talk until we are blue in teh face, but your husband and the NCOs have very few choices.... I fear for the young officers and troops, being formed right now

[Howardx]

10. good book to read for some understanding

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society

Dave Grossman

[Zuni]

16. If you haven't been in battle

you cannot imagine how it turns a man into an animal. Stronger men than these have become temporarily insane under the pressure

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. It is strange when you come back to any kind of normalcy and

yuo are still jumpy over explosions, back firings the works... you have been there, I take it, so you will apreciate this.

We went to ren faire, the faire cannon went off as we were looking at widgts, I hit the dirt, my husband and my sister and brother in law took cover and searched for imagined or real weapons... the lady was freaked until we went. medic, Navy, PD, PD... she had that look of, holy shit... but she decided not to ask any more questions.

And you are right, people who have never been under fire will have a hard time understandng. I was medic for a Red Cross National Socity, not the American Red Cross, one that actually responds to emergencies on a daily basis... you'd be amazed how many times my Red Cross became a ... target... so I hold no illusions

[ultraist]

80. Irony?

The poster with the "Jesus" quote is justifying immoral behaviors and brutalities that constitute war crimes?

[LynnTheDem]

87. More like "wholly expected"

It's what they do, use Jesus as a cover.

[ultraist]

102. LOL! "wHOLY expected."

[mordarlar]

172. Too bad that many Iraqi children will have battle fatigue before they have

mature reasoning. They are born into a world of it. Yet if a thirteen yr old Iraqi were to harm one of the US soldiers in such a manner, there would be little sympathy for the teen's emotional state. Citizens en mass in the US would be calling for their tortured imprisonment or worse death.


When it is our men we have nothing to say about it. We should take it like we expect them to.

[diamond14]

182. it's so sad...tragic....

.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. "Supprt out Troops!" No matter how sadistic.

Just a poor misunderstood GI behaving "inappropriately". They used to call such actions war crimes.

[Zuni]

8. If these were war crimes

then soldiers all over the world by the millions would be guilty.

random brutality is common in any war zone

a real war crime would be killing in cold blood

[LynnTheDem]

12. Just remember to say the same things when it's a US soldier lying on the

ground dying, and being kicked in the face.

Legal...just inappropriate behaviour of common random brutality.

[Zuni]

21. it happens in war

American soldiers have been beaten as prisoners by other shell shocked soldiers

it happens

[LynnTheDem]

35. 1. They ARE war crimes; read the "quaint" Geneva Conventions and the

US regs for treatment of POWs.

2. Let's just do away with all GCs and regs. Let all sides do whatever they want. Why hold anyone accountable for anything.

After all, "it happens" anyways, so why not just go free-for-all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. You are aware taht in the 18th century commanders

had the freedom to order the troops to kill the wounded in the field, aren't you?

Are you advocating returning to that?

You are also aware taht during the battle of Solferino Jean Henry Dunnant, was horrified (19th century) and mobilized civlians to take care of the casualties that otherwise would have been left to die. He also comvinced both military commanders to loan him their Medical staff to direct the taking care of the wounded, the local Church (until then the only neutral ground) was used as a hospital.

You want to go back to the 18th century, or do you want to do the little we can to reduce suffering? As I said, this will not stop... the troops should be given an article 15, but most importantly should be pulled off the line.

You and I will pay for this war... troops are coming home from the line no debriefing, have fun... becuause they are comning off the line ready to kill, or be killed.

[Zuni]

47. no

but very few soldiers have the opportunity to bone up on their copies of the hague rules for land warfare while they are being shot at.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. trust me, been there done taht

my job was to enforce geneva, and I had trouble boning on it while being shot at.

:-)

[LynnTheDem]

48. Re-read my posts. I believe you've mistaken my extreme sarcasm

literally.

Of course I'm not advoating a trip back to the dark ages; but those who will excuse criminal behaviour from our troops most certainly are.

What we do will be done to us.

I DON'T WANT that same shit being done to our troops.

And if we tell the world it's ok for our troops to do it, then our troops will continue to do it, and it will be done to our troops (and to any of us) in return.

Criminal behaviour is criminal behaviour, and should be punished as such, and I don't give a damn if that criminal behaviour happens here at home or there in a war. NOT ALL our soldiers are committing war crimes; not even most. The ones who are, and who are allowed to get away with it as "inappropriate behaviour" are putting ALL our troops into danger.

[Zuni]

54. I do not want anyone to do this

I am not happy about this. I am not happy that are soldiers are in Iraq.
I only started posting on this thread because people were acting like normal battlefield brutality, which happens in every battle in every army, was the equivalent of the fucking nanking massacre or the massacre at Babi-Yar in Kiev.

I was merely trying to put this into perspective for the whack jobs who think US Army troops are like the Waffen SS.

[IrateCitizen]

57. Well, the truth be told, Zuni...

... a lot of US troops aren't all that much different from the Waffen SS. That's not meant as a comparison of US troops to Nazis, but rather a comment in the other direction about the banality of evil, and how that capability exists in every single person.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

149. The Waffen SS were the elite combat arm of the SS structure...

...and were highly respected for their fighting ability by their Soviet and Western Allied opponents. From my studies, the Waffen SS was not the arm of the SS that was responsible for the death camps and death squads. But the Waffen SS could be as ruthless as the worst of the SS when they had to be.

In many respects, the regular US Army and US Marine units are also highly respected by their opponents on the field of battle. But, just like the Waffen SS or any other elite unit throughout history, they are capable of doing terrible things, because that is the very nature of war. What has happened to Fallujah is an excellent example. The only event that may exceed what we've done in Fallujah is the razing of the Warsaw Ghetto by the Germans in 1944.

And no, as a former Navy officer, I'm pretty far from being a "whack job". "Realist" is probably the best way to describe the way I think.

[Charon]

173. Waffen SS

I would think that the Japanese capture of the City of Nanking was at least the equal of the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. As i said, in other places

this is a breakdown in command discipline, Troops really do not understand the rules of land warfare... and that is what Article 15s can be used for, enforcing (as much as possible) the rules they truly do not understand when they are being shot at

[Zuni]

94. I can agree with that

it is a breakdown in disclipline and the officer in charge should have prevented it or stopped it.

[Zuni]

50. no, Abu Ghraib is a good example of a violation

although, technically, the Iraqi insurgents are not covered by the Geneva convention because it covers only uniformed soldiers.

But Abu Ghraib was a severe violation of conduct.
Land warfare violations are broken all the time in the heat of battle. Abu Ghraib was not a battlefield.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Hmm reread Geneva

the 1949 conventions also cover civilians in insurgencies... it just gets very murky and why the side defining the insurgency will do all they can to avoid the insurgents being recognized as a lawful combatant. The moment any nation recognizes the iraqis as legal lawful combatants, they are now due all the protections of Geneva...

[Karenina]

113. At this late date, it wouldn't matter

What I find unbearably distressing is the inability of Americans to see the situation from the point of view of "the other." THAT is the point I got reading Lynn's post when it still had 0 replies.

The "war is hell" cliche doesn't wash. WHY ARE AMERICANS SOLDIERS, who found NO WMDS, no vials of chemicals, no 45 minute plans in place, who deposed the brutal dictator, handed over sovereignty, supervised elections, CONTINUING TO DECIMATE IRAQ AND IRAQIS WITH IMPUNITY???

To date NO ONE of import has been held accountable for ANYTHING, a FACT not lost on anyone outside your shores. No accountability for the razing of cities, bombing of hospitals, poisoning of the land, air and water, theft of resources or WANTON DESTRUCTION... Nothing but LIES and cover-ups and an occasional wrist slap...

How would YOU feel is this were happening on YOUR STREET CORNER?
How would YOU feel if the victim were someone near and dear to YOU???

WHY ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS ALLOWING THIS GENOCIDE TO CONTINUE???

American military personnel are being fed into a meat grinder, returning to your shores under cover of darkness in boxes, or physically and emotionally maimed, poisoned, their and their families' needs on permanent IGNORE.

WHAT is NOT TO GET HERE????? :wtf:

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. Becuase US Military personnel are trapped in the same

trap many other Imperial Forces have been trapped since Rome

the individual soldier may not agree, but cannot question what are so far lawful orders.

Until we have the civilians who gave those orders in front of the hague (Cospiracy to engage in agreesive war), the troops have basically three choices. Desert (this is starting), Ask for CO status, (again started), or go.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Well, we agree on that.

Millions of soldiers all over the world are guilty. "A real war crime would be killing in cold blood." You mean like the heroic soldiers that fire missiles from bases not under fire? Bomber pilots? Artillermen? Those not under attack or enduring battlefield conditions but are capable of killing from a distance? Sounds pretty cold blooded to me.

BTW I fully agree with your assessment about war reducing individuals to savagery. What I find grotesque is the glorifying or forgiving of savagery.

[mike_c]

7. multiple violations of the Geneva Conventions in that story...

...but that's hardly surprising anymore. What really surprises me is the number of people-- even here, where information like this is available-- who want to defend those pigs as "just a bunch of kids" or "our troops." They made a music video of the suffering and death they brought to people who had done nothing to deserve America's wrath! A fucking music video! We've read recently that such videos are common in Iraq, an entertaining diversion from the hard work of murdering innocent civilians. And they're doing it in our names.

on edit-- to the DUer who rationalized this as "desensitization after battle" above-- while that rationalization might apply to the acts depicted in the video (and I don't believe it justifies them)-- it certainly does NOT apply to the later editing and distribution of such videos. If they are so desensitized that they find such abuse entertaining well after the stress of battle, how well do you think they will reintegrate into civilian life after they leave the military?

[Zuni]

11. there is nothing here that isn't common to every battle field ever.

This is what happens in war. This is not organized killing, it is callous brutality by people who have been in combat

This isn't the Nanking massacre.

No wonder the military doesn't share this info---too many people who have never been there so quick to pass judgement

[mike_c]

13. I edited my response to reply to this pre-emptively....

Looks like we hit submit simultaneously.

on edit-- and by the way, preventing atrocities during the "stress of battle" is precisely what the Geneva Conventions are for.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. Exactly, if it were solely due to battlefield stress, they would not be

so fucking proud of it after the fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. The Geneva Convention is suposed to do that

and has prevented soem other horrors, but let me ask yuo... you truly believe that wearing a red cross in a combat zone and entering such a combat zone prevents you from carrying a side arm?

If you think that you will nto be shot at, I have... as a Red Cross Worker

Oh and I may add as a medic in a combat zone, I can carry a weapon, chambered for .45 ACP or 9 mm... to defend myself and my patients.

Oh and the Conventions are AN IDEAL... that SHOULD be respected, but once you are shot at, things happen that you have no clue.

I will not justify these troops doing this... and yes technically it is a violation of the geneva convention... oh and they will have a hell of a time adjusting to civilian life. Some troops can never switch off combat mode... so be worried, very worried.

As to the army's response, my view, they should have given an article 15 and pulled off the line... but they don't have the bodies to spare, so they will not pull them off the line, increasing the psycological damage that you and I will pay for.

War is hell and that is why it should never be entered to lightly, but only men who have never beenn there done that think its fun... now start worrying what this war will do to our society in the next twenty to thirty years. We wil pay the price, hell we are already paying the price.

[mike_c]

157. ummm, perhaps I misunderstand your question...

...because I'm uncertain about your reference to "wearing a red cross." I certainly never suggested that medics don't come under fire, but I'm not sure why that's relevant to this discussion. Unless you mean that that is also a violation of the conventions, in which case I agree with you wholeheartedly. But again, that doesn't seem directly relevant in this case, unless I'm missing something.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. I am sure the Nazi's said that about their troops too

The military doesn't share this info because no one would be gung ho about any war that was not due to a direct threat.

[Zuni]

27. No, but the Nazis rounded up millions of people

and killed them in cold blood. These were not done during a battle, but they were organized genocide. For example, SS Einsatzgruppen went from town to town executing undesirables. They were NOT combat units. Their sole purpose was killing undesirables.
During a battle, far worse barbarity occured, especially in Russia where both sides killed and tortured without mercy.

Americans killed Nazi soldiers in cold blood. After SS troops executed 70 GIs in Malmedy in Dec. 1944, American troops did not take SS prisoners---they killed them on the spot, which is technically a war crime. Many units didn't take Nazi prisoners at all---they shot them.

[mike_c]

134. falluja....

eom

[LynnTheDem]

18. My husband is a US soldier; I'd prefer he not receive the same treatment

we're dishing out to others; if it's ok to kick dying people in the face, then it doesn't matter if the dying is an Iraqi or a US soldier.

YOUR attitude is the one that puts MY soldier husband in danger.

[Zuni]

34. I'd prefer if neither was kicked in the face

I never said it was OK or the right thing to do. I just said most of us cannot imagine what kind of stress he has been through. War turns men into animals.
It is hard to judge what you would do there because you have never been there.
It is easy to judge these people in the comfort of your home.

[LynnTheDem]

37. Watch your assumptions of "you've never been there". You know what

they say about assumptions, don't you?

[ultraist]

78. Zuni: Have YOU been in combat?

"It is easy to judge these people in the comfort of your home."

Your judgment of them seems to be loaded with justifications for their horrific behaviors.

[Zuni]

101. I am not justifying this at all

No, I have never been in combat. But this kind of thing always happens in battles.

Also, i don't view everything in black and white---what is horriffic behavior under normal circumstances is the norm in warfare.

[ultraist]

106. "Until you have been in combat..."

So, you are more qualified to judge even though you have not been in combat? :eyes:

We as a SOCIETY have a right to demand that OUR US MILITARY, the WE PAY FOR, lives up to reasonable standards.

We are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and we can do better than WAR CRIMES like kicking dying soldiers in the face. That is DESPICABLE AND SHAMEFUL.

WWJD, the "Prince of PEACE?"

[Zuni]

118. As I said, this behavior is not ok

but imagine you, at 22, in a war zone. It is hard to judge someone just out of high school who was in a very, very scary situation.

This kid wasn't massacring old ladies for fun. He was in a battle and he lost it and freaked.

What he did was wrong, but he is not Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, or Adolf Eichmann for kicking a wounded partisan.

[ultraist]

133. That's why I said in other posts

Systemic factors SHOULD be considered. These soldiers are not operating in a vacuum but that the military ON ALL LEVELS needs to live up to the standards set forth by the United State's of America's rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention.

IF, they were required to live up to these standards and held accountable, our soldiers would be at less risk and they would be less gun ho to go to war. Furthermore, unethical, reckless behaviors put US ALL more at risk, here at home.

My children as well as all of the children of our nation, should NOT have to pay the price, through a terrorist act, for the corrupt actions of some of our military and administration. We, as citizens, have a duty to demand higher standards from our paid and elected public servants.

[Shakespeare]

22. How DARE you excuse this behavior.

Then again, given some of your other views here, I can't say I'm terribly surprised.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

39. The actions of those FEW soldiers put EVERY US SOLDIER, including

my husband and nephew, into danger.

Don't you DARE call that "moralistic whining".

I sure am sick of people like you who assume things with such an air of superiority and justify the illegal and wrong behaviour of SOME soldiers, which puts ALL our soldiers into danger.

With "support" such as yours, our troops don't need enemies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Actually the actions of our administratin

have put your husband adn your nephew at greater danger. Locally, people may have seen these troops do what they did... but what really played to the world was.... declaring the conventions quaint by Gonzales. What played to the world and still plays to the world is Abu Ghraib, where the most we have done is give ten years to a Sergenat but the BGen still walks and her career is technically not yet over.

So it is not the actions of these troops that put their lives in danger, they can be seen as part of a pattern... (they should have been given an Article 15 and REMOVED from the field), but the actions of the President, the Secretary of Defense and others in authority over Abu Ghraib and other clear violations of the Geneva Convention

Oh and I not only sent a husband to war, but been there done that... so I think I do undestand a bit about chain of command and failures of command discipline.

[Zuni]

45. No. I am just saying

that is hard to judge a person in combat because it brings out the worst in men.

These guys could be badd eggs, or they could be a little fucked in the head from being in Iraq too long. They used to have a saying, in WWII, when a man went in battle too long he went Asiatic. In the book, With the Old Breed at pelielu and Okinawa, one of the best war memoirs ever written, the author remembers guys looting corpses, stealing teeth. One guy even cut off a dead Japanese soldiers hands and tried to keep them in his kit.

People who have been in battle can become very callous and can become very brutal. They cannot be judged by our standards.

Other incidents are different---Abu Ghraib was inexcusable. These were not soldiers during a battle, they were brutalizing prisoners under orders for Rummy and for their own sick games.

There is a difference between battlefield brutality and Abu Ghraib brutality. they are both wrong, but the latter is far less excusable.

[Shakespeare]

55. But because the administration has given tacit approval to Abu Ghraib...

...then soldiers are understandably under the impression that they can be "a little rough" with the Iraqis.

With Rush Limbaugh comparing Abu Ghraib to frat pranks, the soldiers are implicitly told it's OK to act like animals.

We have established precedent with our troops that this kind of behavior is OK, which exponentially compounds any "usual" battlefield trauma and makes the act of violence itself casual and acceptable.

And this we do while pretending to spread democracy around the world. Do you see the problem yet? Do you not see the dissonance and the hypocrisy?

Saying "well, it happens" is just not acceptable. I'm not disagreeing that war does horrible things to people--I'm saying that we should hold our soldiers to a higher standard than that, and punish them accordingly when they don't meet that standard. For our own safety, we can't afford to do anything else.

[Zuni]

105. I agree our soldiers should show better behavior

this is bad behavior even in war.

But I find it hard to judge them for being brutal during a battle. It is different for me with Abu Ghraib, where the guilty parties were safe and just acting sadistically.

And I disagree vehemntly with Limbaugh---it was not a frat prank and it should be punished severly.
I do blame the administration for encouraging or not prosecuting bad behavior.

I am not happy about this, but I cannot judge a man who has been in a fierce battle still being emotionally unwound afterwards.

[Shakespeare]

116. Sigh. I'm not saying the soldiers are undeserving of support.

In fact, they need SERIOUS support on the mental health front, and Bush has slashed funds for that.

I think saying that "well, I'm not going to judge him" is a cop-out. The soldiers needs to be disciplined (as do the officers), but they SIMULTANEOUSLY should be given the support they need to help them through the trauma that brought on such horrible behavior. The whole situation is FUBAR, but until we start aggressively disciplining AND treating the behavior, we're never going to slow down that cycle of violence.

[Zuni]

125. I agree

Many of these soldiers need better disclipline. Many of them are fresh out of the states, just out of basic. They are not prepared for counter-guerrilla warfare.

They do need to enforce disclipline better---Abu Ghraib is a sign of that. And we need a new CinC, and to get rid of Rumsfeld, because frankly they are the root of the problem.

I just don't want to blame some freaked out kid when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are the real problem.

[Blue to the bone]

52. He neither denied that it happens nor excused those who have done it..

...He just stated that it happens in every war, which I'm sure it does. Why do facts bother some people so much?

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Becuase it may be somebody you know who yuo went to that

hell, and when they come back they will never be the same... and war, combat, changes those who have been there in ways that are at times scary.

I still wake up at night and I never killed anybody, they just tried to kill me... not did I have the abilty to kill them.....

As my husband and I like to say, were were and are both insane, but my insantiy is deeper... I volunteered to go to that hell and was never paid for it...

[Shakespeare]

42. Yes, you are. We have a RESPONSIBILITY to be humane.

"get off your moral high horse"--I think you know what you can do with that comment.

That you are unable to understand why it is so important that our soldiers be held to a standard that requires humane treatment on their part just boggles the mind.

We are in the middle east presumably to be standard bearers for democracy and human rights. When we behave cruelly--no matter how much "everybody else does the same thing in war"--then we lose ALL moral authority.

If we're pretending to be there for humanitarian reasons, then we'd damn well better behave in a way that reflects that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. People are confusing morality (does not exist in war

war is mass murder and mass rape), with command discipline.

Troops kicking a wounded man reflects more on poor command discipline than on the rules of warfare, which become a nice theory in an active combat zone. As those who have been there done that will tell you, troops will do this WHEN COMMAND DISICPLINE FAILS... and yuo have very little means for troops to decompress between patrols.

These breakdowns also happen when troops have been on the wire way too long and under constant threat. Alas our troops are on the wire way too long and we don't have enough troops. (You may see this as justification I see it as a reason why you will see more and more of this happening until we get enough bodies to get a descent rotation, which will reduce, not eliminate such incidents)

It has nothign to do with morality.. in war there is very little of such a thing... and all ideals you see in the teevee quickly disapear for combat troops. It is like sand, you try to hold onto it, but the harder you squeeze the faster it goes. In an insurgenty it gets far worst, for you never know who the enemy is... yep that cute little child could be the enemy. This applies whether this is El Salvador, Afghanistan, the southern state of Chiapas, or Iraq, and who is an insurgent depends on who gets to write the definition, by the way.

There is morality insofar as rules that you should follow, most PfCs regardless of army, forget them rules, and it is up to sergeants and Captains to make sure troops follow the rules, which make no sense to the troop, or the newly minted butter bar.

This is why this is more a breakdown of command discipline and these troops shuold have been given article 15s and PULLED OFF THE LINE to remind the rest that indeed those things that don't make sense can cost them if they don't follow them. Of course the worst yuo can have is a troop that no longer cares and for whom an article 15 means nothing, heck maybe a trip back to the real world

[Shakespeare]

60. No, I'm not confusing that at ALL.

In fact, you pretty much re-made the same point I was making. Morality has to be part of command discipline, and when that doesn't happen, then you see the kind of degradation going on now.

And it's just one more way we have horribly botched this whole insane mess.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Reality is I am not making the point that command

should have any morality. In a miltiary force morality has very little to do with this outside of JAG, and Field Greade and General level Officers. The rest salute anything that moves and do as they are told and are shown.. the old adage, leading by example still applies

Until we put BGen Karpingky, MajGen Miller and LGen Boyken in a general court martial over Abu Ghraib, don't expect Lt Johnson, or even Captain Donovan... for that matter MSergeant Jenkins, to enforce this beyond maybe an article 15 here and there IF they get caught.

It is NOT their job... and that is the way ANY military works.

[Shakespeare]

72. Yes, the officers need to be held responsible.

But that does not remove the responsibility from the individual soldier, by law, code or any other convention.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. No, but most armies deal wiht this with an article 15

reduction in rank, reduction in pay, and confinment, in a war zone, this has very little threat.

If yuo are expecting a full court martial for this... then we will have to line half the US Army, currently in service and then go track half the vets from gufl War One, and three fourths from Nam?

You will not see a court martial... and if they do an article 15 (the most likely result) you will not be privvy to it.

[Shakespeare]

88. Didn't say I expect a full court martial.

But we need to do SOMETHING to show that the officers and the administration will not tolerate this. They've done just the opposite. In fact, they've done more in the last two years to approve of such behavior than in our country's entire history. I refuse to write that off by saying everybody does it, it can't be avoided. We have to be better than this. Our officers have to be better than this. Our administration has to be better than this.
Every SUV-driving, 'murrican flag-waving freeper needs to be better than this. And I am exhausted and weary at heart from trying to fight this "bring it on" mentality of the last few years.

We have to stop saying, "well, this is what happens in war," and change ourselves fundamentally as a society. Until we do that, we continue to degrade ourselves and all of humanity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Well this happens in war... but it happens more often when

you have poor command disipline. This is why I keep harping back to command discipline, UNTIL we article 32 (General Court Martial) LGen Miller, BGen Karpinsky and MajGen Boykin, don't expect a Captain in the field to do much more than give field grade article 15s for this.

In many ways their hands are tied, regs or no regs.

[Shakespeare]

103. And is that acceptable to you?

I don't think we disagree about the current real-world mechanics of the situation, but I'm not sure where you stand on my ultimate point, which is that we have a moral obligation to try to do better (especially when we've been doing the opposite, and regressing in so many ways under the current administration).

I feel nothing but despair that so many--even on our side--(and I'm not necessarily referring to you) are inclined to shrug this off. You can call me a moral whiner all you want, but I'm not going to back off of my contention that we have an obligation as humans first, as representatives of our country second, to be more humane, combat stress or no combat stress (or rage).

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. It is not acceptable

but there is absolutely nothing I can do... except talk to troops before they deploy or when they come home....

Look we have to demand that those in charge face the music... and I mean those in charge, before we require this level of adherence to the conventions by an E-2 or an E-3. there is a reason why Nuremberg did nto go after anybody bellow E-4, they were aware that if soldiers start questioning every order given, you also loose command disicipline

But there is a problem when we try a Sergeant and a PfC over abu grraib, while the people who gave the orders don't have to worry about a thing.

Oh and talking about ilegal orders, they should have disobeyed them... but an E-2 has a hell of a time knowing when to say Sir, no Sir, put that ilegal order in writing Sir.

In fact most E-2 will not do that.

[Shakespeare]

117. Then I think we DO agree.

It's not an easy issue, although the morality of it is, maddeningly, very simple--which complicates it further. How's that for a badass paradox?

And I suppose that intense debate like this is part of working towards a solution; it's too bad that it's just us on this message board, and not key players in the administration. It's too bad, and it's utterly heartbreaking.

[Zuni]

107. I want them to show good behavior

but many people here are equating some excess brutality during a battle with the kind of extreme rape and pillaging of the huns.

[Blue to the bone]

49. Careful Zuni, that practice of stating facts can get you into trouble...

....with some here.

[Shakespeare]

58. No one is disputing facts, Blue to the Bone.

But you knew that already.

[Blue to the bone]

64. Well, some are insinuating he doesn't support the troops...

....because he's stating the facts. That sort of shit bothers me.

[Shakespeare]

67. No, no one has suggested anything of the kind.

If anything, he's taking heat for implying that the cruelty is somehow to be expected, and, therefore, excusable. Supporting the troops a bit too much, perhaps.

[Blue to the bone]

69. Then I direct your attention to post number 39....

....his "support" of the troops is definitely being questioned, even to the point of saying he's an enemy.

Another fact. But then, you already knew that.

[Shakespeare]

71. And do note the poster pointed out she's being sarcastic.

It appears you completely missed that fact.

Right back atcha.

[Blue to the bone]

75. Spin the poster's words which ever way makes you feel better....

...but they still say what they say.

I missed nothing. And I don't believe I've read anywhere where he has excused anyone's actions. To me, he has stated that this sort of shit happens in every war that man has ever fought and will happen in every war that man ever fights in the future.

No excuses, just fact.

[Shakespeare]

81. ROFL!

I didn't "spin" anything--the poster who made that comment said herself that she's being sarcastic.

Saying "everybody does it" is a rationalization. And there's no way to spin that.

[Blue to the bone]

84. Glad you're so easily amused. Where in post #39 does the poster...

....say she's being sarcastic when she questions Zuni's 'support' for the troops?

[Shakespeare]

It seems she's responded to this sub-thread herself.

So perhaps you should ask her.

[Blue to the bone]

95. True, she's now saying that I support ILLEGAL actions by our troops...

....sounds to me like she's hysterical about this issue.

[Shakespeare]

119. uh, nope...that's not what she's saying, either. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

120. I haven't ever been called "hysterical" about any issues by anyone

other than rightwingnuts. Now a progressive calls me "hysterical" because I believe that not all soldiers should be blamed for individual soldiers' actions and that individual soldiers should be held accountable for their individual actions.

Wow how "hysterical" of me! And how "hysterical" of the US military regs which say exactly the same thing!

:eyes:

[Blue to the bone]

124. Then I'm hysterical as well 'cause......

...I believe that not all soldiers should be blamed for individual soldiers' actions and that individual soldiers should be held accountable for their individual actions.

If you think I've ever said anything else, then you have me confused with someone else...perhaps one of those phantom rightwingnuts.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue to the bone]

132. Mommie. She called me a rightwingnut.

And she's looking at me too.

[LynnTheDem]

135. Why would you infer such a thing?

Interesting.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue to the bone]

144. I'm 4 and a half. n/t

[Ms. Clio]

169. You ARE a rightwingnut, Bluey...and a troll who didn't make it to 1000

[LynnTheDem]

177. YESSSSSSSS!!!!!!

FINALLY!!!

After so many alerts, it FINALLY flew above the radar! :) :) :)

WELL DONE, MODS!!!

:)

[Karenina]

183. Endlich!

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

184. I got a PM about our late departed poster, blue

I thought that his living in a ranch in Venezuela, and the careful way in which he framed his views about Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution, were indicative of someone that would support a Bush coup to reinstall the elites.

I believe the late poster would had opposed land reform just as that member of the British Royal family that owns all that land in Venezuela.

[ultraist]

138. Ad hominem attack, Blue, weak...

Demanding that OUR country live up to basic, reasonable standards is hysterical? WOW! That sounds sounds like a Rummie cop out. "You go to war with the military you have" (ie 'fuck any reasonable standards, we just slum it here in the US because we CAN fuck over anyone, including our soldiers and leave any ethics by the wayside).

I guess all progressives who are opposed to war crimes and illegal wars are just tin foil hat loonies. :eyes:

[Blue to the bone]

140. You have a point there........

...I'd forgotten about the tin foil.

[ultraist]

145. It doesn't surprise me

That you have such low standards for the US military. Low standards seems to be a theme with you.

[Blue to the bone]

147. And I'm crushed that you don't approve of me.

Woe is me, what will I do?

[LynnTheDem]

142. It's a habit.

As DU's "search by author" shows.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

155. EXCUSE me???

:wow:

[Zuni]

110. You miss my point

This kind of behavior is common during battles. It is not ok, I do not condone it, but I understand why it happens. I was angry because there are some posters who seem to think a GI kicking a combatant is equivalent to Genghis Khan.

[LynnTheDem]

79. FACT; kicking a dying POW in the face is ILLEGAL. You don't mention that

FACT.

By refusing to hold INDIVIDUAL soldiers accountable for their ILLEGAL actions, it puts ALL our troops in greater danger.

I'm not "insinuating" a damn thing; people who believe individual soldiers should not be held accountable for their actions only reinforce the belief that it's OK for soldiers to commit such crimes, which tells the world it's OK for others to commit such crimes against our troops, and THAT is NOT supporting our troops.

Why is it always black-white with you???

It's either "BLINDLY support ALL our soldiers no matter what they do" of "BLINDLY BLAME all our soldiers for what INDIVIDUALS do".

NO. NEITHER.

Support the soldiers who deserve the support, and hold accountable those INDIVIDUALS who do not. No idea why this is so damn difficult for some supposed progressives to understand.

[Shakespeare]

83. Well said. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Hmm first off this IS an insurgency

and we have NOT recognzied the Iraqis as a lawful legal combatant... hence this man is NOT a POW, accorded the full protections of the Geneva Convention, if we are going to get very technical about it.

Yes it is a violations of the UCMJ and the 1949 Conventions, but not for kicking a POW.. this man is NOT a POW...

Don't try to split hairs

As I have repeateadly said, if yuo expect a court martial from the military, don't hold yuor breath... it has nothing to do with justifyng or not... reality is an article 15 will be deemed sufficient, if we are lucky and you will NEVER know about it.

Now since this man is NOT a POW, and does NOT have the protections as a POW... it is even easier for JAG to justify an Article 15. Welcome to the real world.

In an ideal world that troop should and woudl face consequences, as in real consequence, but in an ideal world we would not be in Iraq either. Oh and if this ends up in an Article 32, chortle, laugh, any military lawyer worth his or her salt, will bring temporary insantiy and combat rage.

[Blue to the bone]

97. Thank you for your sane posts. They're a pleasure to read. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

139. And never mind the incorrect "facts".

Can't let the real factual facts get in the way of your enjoyment. ;)

[LynnTheDem]

128. You are incorrect. The Iraqis most certainly ARE recognized as lawful

legal combatants, and that's right from bush himself. And even if BUSH didn't want to recognize them, the LAW recognizes them as such as does the UN resolution bush wrote that makes bushCartel the LEGAL OCCUPIERS of Iraq. There are laws that come with being legal occupiers. Like it or not.

YES he was a POW. YES it's a violation of MILITARY REGS and the GCs.

Welcome to the FACTUAL real world, dear. And knock off the hair-splitting you're so desperately trying to do. ;)

Criminal behaviour should be punished. Individual soldiers who commit crimes should be punished. Holding individual soldiers accountable for their crimes helps protect other soldiers.

BLINDLY SUPPORTING all behaviour of individual soldiers is no support at all.

[Blue to the bone]

131. I have to ask again, where is anyone guilty of:

<<BLINDLY SUPPORTING all behaviour of individual soldiers>> ????

I've read most, but not all, of the posts to this thread and if anyone is blindly stating anything it's...well....

Most of those you seem to have an issue with have tried, much more eloquently than I, to basically say that nasty shit happens in war, all wars, and all the wishing we do that our boys would be more sensitive to the needs of those whom they've just tried to kill, would be a good thing.

I wish it too. It would be a good thing.

But I also wish that no animals would suffer in this world, all children would be lead happy lives, no one would ever worry about meeting their bills, and that we could all join hands and sing kumbaya.

[nadinbrzezinski]

163. No, they are an open insurgency

they are not recognized as legal combatants with all the protections of the Geneva Convention, though they are given certain protections given to all civilian OCCUPIED populations under Geneva, 1949

the difference is very technical and one that our AG will love to use against them.

[LynnTheDem]

171. Rebellion against occupiers is allowed.

An occupied people aren't required to submit quietly to invaders.

And as I said, bush himself has already publicly stated all Iraqis are under the protection of the GCs.

Not that anything bush says means squat, but yes they are protected under the GCs, "open insurgency" or not.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

136. One man's insurgent is another man's freedom-fighter....

...one man's colonist participating in the Boston Tea Party, is another man's looter.

IMHO, we should have treated all of those captured in Iraq as we would have expected our POWs to be treated. By using your definition of a POW, we've turned an entire country against us, including some who we believe are allied with us. That man may not be a POW, but he is a human being. Unfortunately, thanks to the methods we used at Fallujah, we will never "win" this war.

The same crap went on in Vietnam, and the anger and hatred it generated cost us more than 58,000 lives by the time we got out. That's the real world that we're dealing with now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here's something else you can get technical about...it's been quite some time since we signed the Geneva Accords, if we ever did. Our fearless, and chickenhawk, leaders reserve the right to treat prisoners any way that they wish, depending on the circumstances.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. My friend you are very correct

this same shit went on during vietnam, where I will remind you... the VC was nto subject to the Geneva Convention since THEY NEVER SIGNED THEM

By the way, same shit went in El Salvador and Nicaragua....

Now the differences are very technical... and here this is a population under our military occupation, which ahem, comoplicates matters for the occupying party.

Once yuo start looking at this from this technical standpoint some statements by our fearless leaders make even more sense in an evil way. they are aware of the technicalities and ignore the fact that whether the other side is recognized or not, our troops are obligated to follow the conventions to the letter, as WE are signatories.

[mike_c]

148. IF he was a wounded combatant, rendered unable to fight...

...you know as well as I do that he was afforded protection from further violence under the conventions. However, as you say, this is an insurgency, so I'm not at all certain that the wounded person was even a combatant-- he is just as likely to have been a civilian (on edit-- I haven't seen the video, of course). The only way that imperial occupation armies ever put down popular insurgencies is by brutal suppression of the entire population. That too is a violation of the conventions, and I know you're aware of that. I just don't see any argument that can justify either the brutality itself or the making of entertainment videos documenting that brutality. These are fundamental violations of international law at every level.

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. They are, but until we get officers at the highest levels

held accountable we are just spinning circles. We seem to be willing to hang a lowly PfC, (Nuremberg never tried PfCs) but we are not willing to go after the General level and field grade officers. this is the problem. We seem horrified at the horrors comited by low level troops, but as a society, collectively we are giving a pass to the three star, or the four star.

This is the fundamental problem wtih this logic. Yes the PfC should face the music, and in an ideal world would face a Court Martial... but the example by the Theater Commander (Sanches), or the CiC, inspires little trust that the attitudes in the field will change

[IndianaGreen]

185. The US invasion of Iraq was as criminal as Germany's invasion of Poland

The Iraqi people have as much a right to fight off the foreign occupier as the French Resistance and the Polish White Eagle did in opposing the Nazi occupiers.

The problem with the "Support the Troops" crowd is that they automatically excuse the troops from individual responsibility for their actions. They insist that Bush and Rumsfeld alone are responsible for war crimes, but that the GIs are not. If we were to apply such twisted logic to the Holocaust, then only Hitler and his top henchmen would be guilty of crimes against humanity, while the following would not be held accountable for the Holocaust: concentration camp guards, the troops that put down the Warsaw ghetto rebellion, the SS doctors that conducted human experiments, the judges and police that enforced Nazi laws, etc.

I will point out that the incidents of torture and war crimes that came to light, did so because there were soldiers that followed the Geneva Convention and risked it all to do what was right. I will remind you of the price that honorable troops have paid already, such as the former commander at Guantanamo who was removed from command by Rumsfeld for posting the Geneva Convention rules in every cell at the camp.

[Blue to the bone]

91. Where have I said a single time that the soldiers shouldn't be held..

...accountable for their ILLEGAL actions? Where?

Quite the contrary. On this forum (LBN), I've clearly stated repeatedly that any soldier who breaks the law should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[Zuni]

112. I agree with you fully

especially with soldiers who commit crime in cold blood.

This was some excess in brutality in heat of battle, he should be discliplined but I cannot judge him too harshly because I have never had been under the same stress and pain he was in.

[diamond14]

180. scary...most of them are 'christians'....they LOVE this crusade...

:puke:

[diamond14]

9. bush* endangers every American soldier in his response to the torture

IMO, abu gharib photos were the BIG turning point for OUR military, who are now joining the anti-war demonstrations with their families and friends...AND fleeing the military (over 5500 AWOL) ....AND refusing to re-enlist....


REAL military people KNOW what it means for bush* sanctioning OUR torture of Iraqis...it opens the door for Iraqis to return the torture to OUR soldiers....and OUR military has seen bush* REFUSED to 'support our troops' on preventing torture, instead hanging out a couple LOWEST level military to "take the fall" for the bush* torture orders...





COMING SOON TO YOUR TV: Iraqi videos showing captured/wounded/dead American soldiers being tortured and mocked and kicked.....because bush* approves that stuff....and bush* refuses to go to a military funeral (too much REALITY there, interferes with bush* ILLUSIONS of grandeur)...

[LynnTheDem]

24. Exactly. If we who are supposed to be "the greatest the most moral" show

it's ok to rape and beat to death and torture and kick dying people in the face, then of course the rest of the world will follow suit and do the same...to Americans.

And when it happens, and it will happen, guaranteed, let's see Americans come up with the same bullshit excuses of "random brutality" and "a few rotten apples" by the enemy against Americans.

Oh right, I forgot; we're UBERMENSCHEN, everyone else is just vermin.

[MuseRider]

14. While I am certain

there is much stress in battle and many really do begin to look at the enemy as less than human there is still the ability to control ones most base emotions. Self control is lacking these days in our society so it does not surprise me that our soldiers are not trained any better than this. It is inexcusible, we are all supposed to be better than that.

[localpolitician]

20. If only...

If only we really lived by the "Do unto others" creed.

[mike_c]

25. Welcome to DU, localpolitician....

:toast:

[diamond14]

28. hello localpolitician....WELCOME to DU !!! we're glad you joined us

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


:hi: :hi: :hi:

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:hi: :hi: :hi: : :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:



:toast: we LOVE local politicians...YOU are the grassroot for change in America !....we NEED your help.....

[stillcool]

44. I find myself shocked at the level of narrow-mindedness....

this thread seems to have revealed. What is wrong with an explanation of the horrors of war, and what becomes to the human psyche when involved? Can you not understand that the actions that we find so horrifying are a natural occurence in the realm of war? If people do not try to understand situations there is no hope of ever rectifying anything. Blaming the soldier is so like this society that wants to put 12 yr.olds to death, while the circumstances that prompted the behavior are allowed to continue. This war is sick, this country is sick, and something is needed to put this out-of-control rabid dog of a country down.

[jayfish]

51. My Favorite Part

"The Pentagon did not release the video, saying it believed it had been destroyed. But a Florida newspaper, The Palm Beach Post, obtained it and posted some of it on its Web site on Monday."

Translation: Man, we thought we had that shit covered-up real good.

Jay

[IrateCitizen]

53. You're not the only one...

It seems that many on the left can be as caught up in their desire for "punishment" and "accountability" as those on the right. So much so, in fact, that they lose sight of the real issue at hand.

[mike_c]

151. they're committing crimes in our names, for god's sake....

Of course we should want them held accountable!

[LynnTheDem]

61. Every single individual soldier is accountable for their own actions.

PERIOD.

NOT ALL SOLDIERS commit atrocities. Not even MOST.

Those who do must be held accountable for THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

The US military itself says so; EVERY soldier is taught the proper way of dealing with POWs, as well as the GCs and EVERY soldier knows kicking a dying POW in the face is WRONG.

To excuse ALL SOLDIERS is just as wrong as to blame ALL SOLDIERS.

Soldiers who commit crimes, during war or otherwise, should be held accountable. To do otherwise puts ALL soldiers into more danger.

Why the NARROW-MINDED black-white mentality???

-All individual soldiers who commit crimes should be held accountable for their crimes.

-Don't blame ALL soldiers for the actions of individuals.

[stillcool]

68. And not all twelve year olds kill.....

but you can bet the ones that do live in a world that very few people could begin to grasp. So should we excuse the behavior? No, we should try to grasp the environments that are the cause of the behavior. Some kid from 'Anywhere USA', so very well taught on the art of war, is put in a situation that I personally can only imagine. People are human beings, and people fighting in wars are not. They are not allowed to be, if they have any will to survive.

[ultraist]

92. Soldiers are not 12 year old children

To compare them to such is an insult to soldiers.

OBVIOUSLY, the macro issues (systemic factors) need to be considered when understanding the causes of a soldiers behavior as well as holding the higher ups accountable. But EXCUSING their behavior all together, merely validates the entire sick system.

Each of them should be held accountable, as well as their officers. IF this were enforced, we would see a lot less brutality and our soldiers would be less at risk.

We have a set of standards (the Geneva Convention) as well as rules of engagement and the US military should live up to them.

[stillcool]

109. No, no one said excusing their behavior altogether....

if you are this rigid in your thinking now, how are you going to react to their needs when they come home. Those that command, and make decisions on a daily basis should be responsible. Individual acts of cruelty ...I'm sorry, but I believe they are taught, and encouraged in that behavior. Is it wrong? Of course it is. But throwing them in jail, what does that accomplish? They are not 12 years old, but they are not in control of their environment. You think they can quit and come home if it gets too much? Go to a firing range and stand next to one of those bullseye thingys. I am only suggesting that the behavior is a symptom, and the problem is far bigger.

[ultraist]

121. Excuse me?

"If you are this rigid in your thinking..."

If you LACK basic reading comprehension skills, it's not my problem but don't make false extrapolations such as incinuating that I would not be sensitive to their needs when they come home. OBVIOUSLY, the enviornment they have been in has to be considered when addressing their needs. And if you had READ my post, you would have made this logical inference.

I stated that there IS a systemic problem and that macro issues SHOULD be factored in. Yes, some are encouraged to do this. That is what systemic problems means. The individual is operating within a system, not in a vacuum.

But this does not give them carte blanche to commit war crimes. The standards, ON ALL LEVELS, need to be enforced.

[stillcool]

137. Perhaps I do LACK basic reading comprehension skills,....

and yes, that is my problem. However my perception of your lack of malleablility in your thinking arises from the emphasis on punishment, rather than the environment which breeds the behavior. Forgive me, I had no intention of falsely extrapolating on that type of thinking as it pertains to you. Unfortunately, I am well-versed in that rigid type of mind-set, that seems to perpetuate the ills of our society. And, just as some of my family members and friends had difficulties acclamating to society when they returned from VietNam, I fear for these soldiers as well. I simply wish that rather than simply judge the crime....any crime...we attribute human conditions, human behavior, and human compassion to any other human being.

[ultraist]

159. No, I said accountablity on ALL LEVELS

From the top down to the individual soldier. Again, looking at systemic factors IS considering the conditions (ie the system in which they are operating, their environment which includes their officers and the trauma of being in a combat zone as well as other factors).

If I didn't have compassion for them, I wouldn't advocate for higher standards, now would I?

[mike_c]

150. there are laws against the behavior these soldiers exhibited...

...and that makes them criminals. Do you generally advocate not holding criminals responsible for their crimes, or only when they're U.S. military personnel?

[stillcool]

154. Well...as a matter of fact...there have been incidents where I have...

advocated a criminal not be held responsible for a crime. As far as this particular incident, I can think of no greater punishment than the one he has now. If others would prefer that he be further de-humanized, or made to pay an added price, I have no problem with that. The problem for me is to think his punishment will effect change in the way this war is being fought. Or, that he will learn whatever it is they expect him to from his 'punishment'. The entire war is illegal, immoral, and corrupt. Our country does not belong there and is not wanted there, but by all means lets prosecute any soldier who has exhibited 'criminal' behavior, and lets use the Geneva Convention, as our guide, while the illegal, immoral, and corrupt perpetrators get promotions.

[mike_c]

156. I agree-- it's just that we too often hear a double standard...

...applied to military personnel, who too often commit some of the most heinous of crimes. Democracy Now interviewed a former marine sgt a couple of days ago who served in Iraq and described how patrols he was on would arrest and abuse all the males between 8 and 80 on a block, sometimes killing those who objected, simply to relieve their own boredom. This is brutality for its own sake and has got to end.

[Junkdrawer]

65. As Seymour Hersh has said: "Where are the officers?"...

But you know, when we send kids to fight, one of the things that we do when we send our children to war is the officers become in loco parentis. That means their job in the military is to protect these kids, not only from getting bullets and being blown up, but also there is nothing as stupid as a 20 or 22-year-old kid with a weapon in a war zone. Protect them from themselves. The spectacle of these people doing those antics night after night, for three and a half months only stopped when one of their own soldiers turned them in tells you all you need to know, how many officers knew.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/26/1450204

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. The officers have very good NOT exmaples to follow

that is part of the problem. Also the butter bar coming out of ROTC or god help the platoon, West Point, is all book knowledge but little practical knowledge. Many of them are suposed to lead these kids, but they are kids themselves.

Captains could do it, but many of them are just sick of it and once their tour is over, they are done

Majors and Lt Colonels are worried now about a career, and in the current military you really do nto want to rock the boat.

I coudl go on.

Until we make an example of Generals who were behind abu ghraib the officer corp will keep on saluting... and looking the other way if they can.

[IrateCitizen]

90. As a former officer, I'd say you're 100% correct.

The narrow window for officers to actually take control of these kinds of situations and do something about them is the senior 1LT/ junior CPT level. The 2LT's are just too raw (and in many cases, too arrogant -- ESPECIALLY the ring-knockers), and when you have the senior CPT's and up, they're usually on BN staff or higher staff positions, and are more worried about their own career advancement ahead of all else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. I know for me much of this is not theory

[Zuni]

115. when you have an immoral CinC

and an immoral Sec of Def, some of their irresponsibility trickles down

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Correct, bingo,

and that is part of the problem

[mike_c]

152. that is so simplistic as to be an utter cop-out....

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. Yuo do know of the principle

Leaderhsip by example, don't you? If you are, you will realize why this is not a cop out but part fo the isidious breakdown in command and control

[mike_c]

170. of course, but to lay all the blame for the crimes of soldiers...

...in the field on Bush and Rumsfeld is way too simplistic-- even if they were capable of creating a culture of calluous brutality in the military it would likely take years to accomplish it WITHOUT there being a pre-existing bias in that direction already-- in fact, only the veneer of the conventions and the perceived morality of WWII era citizen soldiers has kept that bias in check, and then only sort of.

I do agree with you 100 percent that expressing that brutality indicates a breakdown in command discipline-- an utter meltdown IMO. And I also agree that responsibility should go all the way up the command structure, with increasing weight as it goes. Nonetheless, I think the only way for us, as a nation, to salvage any hope of national pride for the future is to march the lot of them off to The Hague, even if only metaphorically. I have no pride left in the American military-- if it were in my power I would likely disband it. Sure, I'm an extremist in that respect, but my extremism is a response to this sort of immoral and casual brutality. It didn't start in Iraq-- we both know that. But it won't ever end unless we put a stop to it in no uncertain terms.

[Junkdrawer]

141. Look, we give these folks massively destructive weapons...

if there is no military discipline, this is the kind of crap that goes on.

IOW: If the game is to supply immature idiots massive instruments of death with an order to "Do what you think is right", then the responsibility for messes like this falls back to the ones that supply the weapons and the orders.

[Zuni]

114. That makes perfect sense

a 20 year old kid in a war zone is not the most reasonable person.

They need to enforce disclipline better in some cases.

And this was Abu Ghraib----what happened at Abu Ghraib was not even in a battle. The guy in the thread was absuing an insurgent during a battle.
He was wrong, but it is hard to judge him.

[Vinca]

82. It sickens me that human life is treated at the level

of a violent, video game. If this is only considered "inappropriate behavior," we've become our worst enemy.

[ultraist]

130. Shouldn't the United States be THE example for...

respecting human rights and freedom?

[walldude]

158. Exactly my friend..

When exactly did we start judging ourselves by comparing what we do to violent insane dictators. Oh well at least we don't have rape rooms. Saddam had mass graves. Yeah some great fucking standards to live up to. I still have the letters my grandfather sent home from WWII. In every letter he made a point to tell us that he didn't hate the enemy, all he saw was another soldier fighting for his country. He did what he had to do to survive. That was all. I cannot believe that people here would argue semantics like the enemy are insurgents not prisoners of war. Yeah maybe from your small minded perspective. I bet from the insurgents perspective he is a freedom fighter beating back an enemy that illegally invaded his homeland.

*on edit* I just scored a copy of Gunnars Palace, maybe my opinion will change after seeing it but somehow I doubt it.

[ultraist]

162. Well said!

I'm sure many of the soldiers in Iraq also have the dignity your grandfather had, but those who do not, for whatever reason, and who are not being held accountable, shame all of us. From the top down, there need to be higher standards.

Violating human rights is inexcusable.

[Roland99]

166. They were just letting off a little steam

[Junkdrawer]

168. Yeah, fraternities do worse...

in the inner circles of Hell...

[RuleofLaw]

174. I think I will view

all those old war movies in a new light now. Remember all those movies with the bad nasty Nazis that kick old people and hit prisoners. That was meant to show people that we are better than them.

Apparently those German soldiers did nothing wrong. Interesting :crazy:

[LynnTheDem]

175. Funny you say that; I used to be a huge war movie fan. Now I can't watch

them. As you said, all that I thought of as "wrong" and the "bad guys" we're being told is now official US policy and/or "not illegal, just inappropriate".

It shook the hell out of me the other night to realize that the Nazis weren't "born bad"; you don't have millions of people just born bad...OUR TROOPS would and could do exactly what the Nazis did if they were in the same situation.

And suddenly I don't feel safe even with my own countrymen any more. My whole frigging world has been dumped upside down.